Recent Articleshttp://prospect.org/authors/126805/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenKey to Understanding the New Congress: Gingrich's Contract With Americahttp://prospect.org/article/key-understanding-new-congress-gingrichs-contract-america
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p> </p>
<div class="embed">
<div class="image image-large">
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ap9504070450_1.jpg?itok=uBCI94oI" alt="" title="" /></div>
<div class="field field-name-field-credit field-type-text field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">(AP Photo/Denis Paquin)</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, gestures while addressing a rally at Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, April 7, 1995, on the completion of the Republicans' “Contract with America.” While promising to return next month to take care of unfinished business, Gingrich proclaimed that “this is only a beginning.” </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class="dropcap">A</span>s the 114<sup>th</sup> Congress begins, Republicans are signaling their desire to prove their party can not only win elections, but can govern. “GOP goal: Prove it can lead,” was the title of a page A1 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-taking-control-of-congress-eager-to-reshape-policy-and-strike-deals/2015/01/03/158c2b24-9296-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html">story</a> in Sunday’s print edition of <em>Washington Post</em>. “GOP agenda for Congress: Challenge Obama, prove they can govern,” <em>CNN</em> <a href="file:///C:\Users\schaller\Documents\Political\twobushes\GOP%20agenda%20for%20Congress:%20Challenge%20Obama,%20prove%20they%20can%20govern">blared</a> the next day.</p>
<p>That governing agenda surely includes speeding up energy production, slowing down Obamacare’s implementation, and continued foot-dragging on immigration reform. But top party leaders readily confess their deeper motives. “We have to show that we can be a productive party, and that, I think, will have a direct effect on whether we’re able to elect a Republican as president in 2016,” said Senator John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee. New Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was even more blunt: “I don’t want the American people to think that, if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that’s going to be a scary outcome.”</p>
<p>So there you have it. The primary objective for congressional Republicans over the next two years is to live by the partisan-electoral version of the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm to the party’s chances to establish unified control of Washington in January 2017.</p>
<p>If the past six decades are any guide, however, this is an ambitious goal. Indeed, by the end of the Obama presidency, the federal government will have been divided for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States">nearly 70 percent</a> of the previous 64 years. But as I argue in my new book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Stronghold-Republicans-Captured-Congress-Surrendered/dp/0300172036/">The Stronghold: How Republicans Captured Congress but Surrendered the White House</a></em>, Republicans, and conservatives in particular, should be rather pleased with their congressional domination in the quarter century since the end of the Reagan-Bush (41) era—even if the GOP’s congressional successes were attended by, and in many ways the cause of, the struggles of its presidential nominees. <span class="pullquote">In this protracted era of divided government, controlling Congress makes a lot more sense for Republicans than occupying the Oval Office.</span></p>
<p>To understand why, let’s return to the moment of conception for today’s Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, and the seminal Republican figure of the past half-century: the 1994 “Republican Revolution” and Newt Gingrich. Despite conservatives’ unabated veneration of Ronald Reagan, the truth is that the Gipper left a far less indelible imprint on recent American politics than the Georgia speaker. Yet, the onset of the 114<sup>th</sup> Congress has occasioned surprisingly few mentions of the arrival, 20 years ago this week, of the historic 94<sup>th</sup> Congress that put the GOP in control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years.</p>
<p>The Republicans’ path to power was paved by the “<a href="http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/jgloekler/documents/contract.pdf">Contract with America</a>.” In retrospect, the “Contract” was notable for two reasons.</p>
<p>First, as my political science colleague Ron Rapoport <a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/143792/threes_a_crowd">has shown</a>, it was designed to appeal especially to the reformist impulses of the nearly one in five Americans who voted for Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. As I remind readers in my book, the Contract’s second notable feature, very much related to the first, was its avoidance of specific policy proposals in favor of institutional reforms proposed as an indirect means to delivering good policy. Slightly condensed here for brevity’s sake, the document’s eight key tenets were:</p>
<ul><li>Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to the Congress;</li>
<li>Hire an independent firm to audit Congress for waste, fraud, or abuse;</li>
<li>Cut the number of House committees, and reduce committee staff by one-third;</li>
<li>Limit the terms of committee chairs;</li>
<li>Ban <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=51ATA-A5WaQC&amp;pg=PA528&amp;lpg=PA528&amp;dq=proxy+voting+in+congress&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=oscd1JKVWG&amp;sig=oLXsMVk47EqNA81OyeRbZtQmyvU&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=JwOwVK6qDYTbsASD8IHwAQ&amp;ved=0CCYQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&amp;q=proxy%20voting%20in%20congress&amp;f=false">proxy voting</a> in committees;</li>
<li>Open all committee meetings to the public;</li>
<li>Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; and</li>
<li>Implement zero- base-line budgeting for the federal budget.</li>
</ul><p>Although the audit, tax increase supermajority and zero-base-budgeting provisions offer a vague promise of fiscal restraint, the Contract was not a policy agenda so much as it was a broad political indictment of how Congress does business packaged as a laundry list of proposed reforms. Given their four-decade hegemony to that point, perhaps Democrats deserved the indictment and the public’s ire toward Congress.</p>
<p>Ten federal elections and 20 years of mostly Republican rule in Congress later, however, the GOP can no longer shift blame across the partisan aisle for a Congress that, just last year, saw its public approval <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/165809/congressional-approval-sinks-record-low.aspx">sink into single digits</a>. But then again, Republicans never really promised to deploy congressional power to fundamentally change national policy. The elevation of procedural and political reform over substantive policy agendas can be traced right back to the Republicans’ original Contract.</p>
<p>That said, Democrats, liberals and other cynics tempted to scoff at congressional Republicans’ pledges to use their 114<sup>th</sup> Congress majorities to solve national problems and govern soberly should remember that the two parties approach the business of governing very differently. To Republicans, modern governing means to slash, slow, cut or otherwise impede federal functions, programs and growth. Here, Hippocrates is turned on his head: The GOP’s principal policy objective is to do ample harm.</p>
<p>Debt-ceiling shenanigans; Ted Cruz-led government shutdowns; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/21/the-house-has-voted-54-times-in-four-years-on-obamacare-heres-the-full-list/">more than four dozen</a> futile Republican House caucus votes to repeal or otherwise gut Obamacare—these actions reveal the GOP’s governing mindset and helped make the 113<sup>th</sup> Congress the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/congress-still-on-track-to-be-among-least-productive-in-recent-history/">most unproductive in history</a>. Because a “productive” Congress means something entirely different to Republicans than it does to Democrats, Speaker John Boehner should be taken at his word when he <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/boehner-judge-congress-how-many-laws-it-repeals-not-passes-f6C10699088">said</a> on national television that Congress “should not be judged on how many new laws we create [but] on how many laws we repeal." Or as anti-tax guru Grover Norquist told me in an interview for <em>The Stronghold</em>, “you can govern with just the House.” Delivered without a hint of irony, Norquist’s maxim at first seemed absurd to me—until I considered the fundamental asymmetries between the two major parties’ governing philosophies, especially at the national level. Adding Republican control of the Senate to their House majority only solidifies the GOP’s ability to govern by obstruction.</p>
<p>As the <em>Prospect’s</em> own Paul Waldman has <a href="http://prospect.org/waldman/mitch-mcconnell-still-mitch-mcconnell">observed</a>, Mitch McConnell’s goal as the new Senate majority leader is “pretty clever;” it’s to make his caucus look “a little more sober and responsible—not so much that they actually do a lot of legislating and make substantive compromises with Obama” but to protect the party’s 2016 nominee. It’s actually more than that: It’s very smart politics, both ideologically and practically. Having rarely suffered electoral blowback from this strategy over the past 20 years, why would—and given their view about federal power, why <em>should</em>—Republicans change now?</p>
<p>So don’t be surprised a year from now when, as the presidential primary season begins and the television trucks and field operatives collectively descend upon Des Moines, Capitol Hill reporters are reflecting back on a year marked by few legislative achievements from the 114<sup>th</sup> Congress. Some bills will surely pass both chambers and die on President Obama’s desk, if only to make claims that Obama is the leader of the real “party of no.” But the GOP may not produce much because it doesn’t intend to—and for the past two decades never really has.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:36:31 +0000221488 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerAIRLINE MIRACLE UNION-MADEhttp://prospect.org/article/airline-miracle-union-made
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>The incomparable <strong>Marcy Wheeler</strong> makes a compelling point in a <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/16/this-miracle-brought-to-you-by-americas-unions/">post today</a> about yesterday's "miracle" rescue of the US Airways plane that had to make an emergency landing in the cold waters of the Hudson River: from the pilot to the flight attendants to the air traffic controllers to certain members of the rescue crews, union workers shined from start to finish.</p>
<p>Nicely-played, organized labor. And nicely-said, Marcy.</p>
<p><i>--Tom Schaller</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:54:09 +0000182206 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerKRAUTHAMMER (P)REVISIONISMhttp://prospect.org/article/krauthammer-previsionism
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Let me get this straight: <strong>Barack Obama </strong>hasn't taken office yet, but based merely on his appointments and statements <strong>Charles Krauthammer</strong> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/obamas_revises_the_bush_years.html">sees vindication</a> of George Bush's policies?</p>
<p>The failure by Obama to order a 180 on every policy is not necessarily a vindication of any policy, and certainly not the Bush Administration as a whole. Indeed, the process of undoing a mess is almost always incremental by its nature. Nor does the keeping on of somebody like Defense Secretary <strong>Bill Gates</strong>, as Krauthammer would have us believe, necessarily validate Bush's Iraq policy.</p>
<p>All this reminds me of the scene in the movie version of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119942/">Primary Colors</a> in which fictional Gov. Jack Stanton (that is, <strong>Bill Clinton</strong>) in a fit of pique throws his cell phone out of the window of a moving car. When Stanton's wife, played by the gorgeous Emma Thompson, insists the phone landed near where she's looking, and she turns out to be right, Stanton's prideful character says something like, "Well, you wouldn't have found it if I didn't throw it out the window in the first place."</p>
<p>This is the sort of logic Krauthammer is deploying: Because Obama opts for what may be the only obvious means of solving some of the problems his predecessor bequeathed to him, including by means Bush himself may or may not have used himself had he more time left in office, does not however imply vindication of the decisions Bush made that led to the problems in the first place.</p>
<p><i>--Tom Schaller</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:26:34 +0000182205 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerFAIREY-IZE YOUR BAD SELFhttp://prospect.org/article/fairey-ize-your-bad-self
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Shepard Fairey, the artist responsible for both the iconic, Andre the Giant "Obey" campaign now enjoying its 20th anniversary, and the red-and-blue Obama "Hope" image that is now an <a href="http://pic2009.inauguralcollectibles.com/category/SHEP.html">officially sanctioned</a> by the campaign and presidential inauguration committee, was on <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/home">The Colbert Report</a> last night. He seemed shy, almost uncomfortable during his interview. Extra points for wearing a T-shirt featuring "The Clash." </p>
<p><img src="http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A2090/20906/300_20906.jpg" /></p>
<p><img src="http://i7.ebayimg.com/03/i/000/e0/a9/d7b7_1.JPG?set_id=7" /></p>
<p>Not much to say here, other than (1) I wouldn't mind swapping bank accounts with Fairey right about now; and (2) if you want to Fairey-ize an image of yourself, you can do so at <a href="http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/">this site</a>. Pretty cool.</p>
<p><i>--Tom Schaller</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:19:09 +0000182203 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerPROPO'S BEFORE OPPO'Shttp://prospect.org/article/propos-oppos
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>I have been ruminating the last couple of days on <strong>Barack Obama’s</strong> dinner party with conservative commentators, hosted by <strong>George Will</strong> earlier this week.</p>
<p>I don’t mind that Obama is trying to disarm his critics. If a dinner causes the conservative journalists in attendance to pull even a few punches, or even cheer the occasional Obama decision, great. I also understand the desire to be the president of “all the people.” That’s noble. And I respect the fact that, as <strong>EJ Dionne</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011403128.html">argued </a>in yesterday's WaPo, Obama is confident enough to spar intellectually with smart people of differing philosophical views.</p>
<p>But my worry is that Obama will succumb to the (Bill) Clintonian penchant for worrying about detractors and foes, before considering supporters and allies. Being inclusive and trying to listen to one’s critics is fine. But you can’t win over anybody, and there is vanity in believing that yes, you can.</p>
<p>Opponents should have a voice, but proponents should come first.</p>
<p><i>--Tom Schaller</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:53:40 +0000182201 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerLBJ'S REVENGEhttp://prospect.org/article/lbjs-revenge
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>My political science colleague <a href="http://academics.hamilton.edu/government/pklinkne/pak.html">Phil Klinkner</a>, of Hamilton College, and I recently co-wrote one of nine articles published by The Forum as part of a post-2008 election analysis colloquium. In <a href="http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/01/did_the_great_society_produce.html">our piece</a>, entitled "LBJ's Revenge: The 2008 Election and the Rise of the Great Society Coalition," we argue that the policies LBJ supported in the mid-60s led, not initially but eventually, to Barack Obama's winning general election coalition in 2008.</p>
<p>I have to give Phil credit for making the link between the Civil Rights Act (blacks, mostly), Immigration and Nationality Act (Latinos/as), and the Higher Education Act (upscale, educated whites), and the coalition Obama assembled last year. What LBJ could not have anticipated then -- or, more to the point, Hillary Clinton failed to prevent in 2008 -- was Obama's ability to also build a new coalition in the <em>primary </em>as well, specifically by taking the African-American vote away from its usual alliance with working-class whites and other non-whites and shifting it into coalition with young voters, college educated whites, and the liberal wing of the party. Absent the extra ballast from the black vote, that latter coalition has historically fallen short of the nomination, as candidates ranging from Eugene McCarthy to Bill Bradley to Howard Dean well know.</p>
<p>So, Obama built <em>two </em>new coalitions -- the first which no white Democrat probably could have, and for which the credit belongs almost exclusively to him and his unique appeal, and a second which he had to mobilize but would never have been available to him without a little help from his Democratic presidential predecessor.</p>
<p>Anyway, I would encourage people to check out the <a href="http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol6/iss4/#article">entire current issue</a> of The Forum. There are some great analyses of the 2008 results from some fantastic scholars in there.</p>
<p><i>--Tom Schaller</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:31:58 +0000182199 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerI DID WATCH IT....UGHhttp://prospect.org/article/i-did-watch-itugh
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Well, it's an honor to be back here at the Prospect, even for the day, subbing for <strong>Ezra</strong>, who said in his final post last night that <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&amp;year=2009&amp;base_name=a_failure#112201">he couldn't bring himself</a> to watch <strong>George Bush's</strong> farewell <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090115-17.html">speech to the nation</a>.</p>
<p>I did. I even bit a hole through my lip while listening to <strong>Bill O'Reilly</strong> claim afterward that the American people like Bush as a person, as a "man," even if they don't like him as president. </p>
<p>Here's what bothers me most about the way in which Bush justifies and rationalizes his presidency: He uses counterfactuals and hypotheticals when they suit him, and not when they don't.</p>
<p>For example, he likes to boast that he kept the country from being attacked again after September 11. He pointed to that objective fact and took credit last night, as he has been for some time now and did in the run-up to his 2004 re-election. But moments earlier in last night's speech from the East Room, Bush came close to admitting that the economy was in horrible shape but conveniently explained that away by suggesting that matters would have been worse if not for the actions his administration took.</p>
<p>So, when an objective reality is good -- and no further attacks is an objectively good reality, even if it came at great expense (use of torture, domestic surveillance) -- the credit is his, and when the objective reality is bad, well, that's only because the hypothetical alternative would have been far worse. This is Bush's heads-I'm-great, tails-I'm-still-great standard for presidential accomplishment.</p>
<p>Ugh.</p>
<p><i>Tom Schaller</i></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:02:00 +0000182198 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerFive Questions About the New Electoratehttp://prospect.org/article/five-questions-about-new-electorate
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>For a decade, Democrats have heard promises that a durable electoral majority was just around the corner. It's easy to construct such a majority on paper: Racial minorities and young voters (those born after 1978) turn out at record levels, working-class whites suppress their socially conservative leanings to vote their pocketbooks, and suburban professionals and their spouses vote together as unified blue households. Such a coalition could obliterate the aging, white, male, socially conservative Republican base that has dominated American politics for most of the past three decades. </p>
<p>This majority, however, is like the carrot tied in front of the donkey's nose--always just a few inches away. Yes, the Democratic presidential nominee won the popular vote in three of the past four presidential elections. But since 1964, only one Democrat has won a majority of the popular vote. During those same 10 presidential elections, the Republicans have won seven times, five of them with outright majorities, and two of these were 49-state Electoral College landslides. </p>
<p>Favorable demographic shifts have induced in Democrats a false sense of comfort. Poll numbers and population trends do not make majorities, and winning coalitions do not deliver themselves: Transformative politicians and entrepreneurial party leaders do. The inherent potential of any majority is latent and must be mobilized. </p>
<p>With Barack Obama as their presidential candidate and Howard Dean as party chief, and with widespread revulsion toward the Republican Party, many Democrats believe all the forces are finally in place to unleash this long-awaited majority. If it happens, and if the majority holds through subsequent congressional and presidential elections, it will represent a historic transformation comparable to the moment when Franklin D. Roosevelt at last unleashed the potential majority made up of farmers, city-dwellers, and first- and second-generation immigrants to end the Republican hegemony that had prevailed since 1896. Has that moment arrived? </p>
<p>The collapse of the Republicans was the first precondition for the emergence of a more favorable electorate. The roots of that collapse can be found in the 2000 election results. Despite the near-obsessive focus on how George W. Bush won the Florida recount, the more significant result was Bush's second-place finish in the national popular vote. The Texan won despite losing, and he lost the popular vote because his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, relied on an outdated coalition formula. </p>
<p>Although Bush and Rove appealed to emergent Hispanics and suburban women with some success, the Republican calculus depended on maximizing returns from electoral cohorts that were shrinking: whites, men, social conservatives, rural residents, and the traditionally married. It was enough, but just barely. According to exit polls, Bush won whites by 12 points but lost among every nonwhite group; he lost the youth vote by wide margins, and he lost among unmarried voters by 19 points. In general, Bush fared well with declining groups and poorly with growing ones. He won the White House twice but lost the future. </p>
<p>"The gradual evolution of the electorate, along with the national political climate, is producing a pro-Democratic shift in almost every demographic group," says Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist. "The continuing increase in the nonwhite vote, unmarried and younger voters, fewer religious voters, and so on are helping Obama. And the generation gap in particular appears to be larger than it has ever been this year: Obama is ahead by 25 to 30 points among under-30s, close to even among older voters, actually trailing slightly among the 65-and-over crowd." </p>
<p>We've heard this promise before. But whether these trends continue, and whether Democrats live up to their potential to create a new and resilient politics, depends on the answers to five questions. </p>
<p></p><center><b> * * *</b></center>
<p>Can democrats do (even) better among women? Women cast a majority of all votes nationally, and their majority expands with every cycle. In 2004, according to Census Bureau data, women cast 53 percent of votes among whites and a remarkable 41 percent to 59 percent of votes among African Americans. And they vote for Democrats: Recent Democratic presidential nominees have not only won large splits among nonwhite women but proved competitive or won outright among white women and carried non-Southern white women. Most polls have shown Obama running almost even with men while leading comfortably among women. </p>
<p></p><center><b> * * *</b></center>
<p>Or will unmarried women drift right? There is a big division among women, however: A recent poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found Obama tied with McCain among married women, a group Bush carried by 11 points in 2004. The Democratic advantage rests on unmarried women--a group that includes widows, divorced women, and those legally barred from entering into same-sex marriages, as well as younger women who are not yet married. The question remains: As younger unmarried women age, wed, and have children, will their partisan tendencies change, as issues that did not concern them when single and childless--the quality of local schools, property taxes, neighborhood safety--creep into their political consciousness? </p>
<p>The media often obsess about the idea that Democrats should fare better among men. But what if a pro-choice party that pushes family-friendly themes piled up even bigger margins among women? The Republicans have used national security and fears of higher taxes to siphon votes from suburban women. Democrats have room to improve among working-class single moms by coupling economic and health-care messages with some response to the moral and familial worries of women whose children often spend many hours unsupervised. </p>
<p></p><center><b> * * *</b></center>
<p>Are today's young voters locked in? John Kerry lost every age cohort except voters under 30, and for once younger voters dramatically increased their turnout from the previous cycle. The generational pushback against the Bush administration and the appeal of Obama's candidacy with young voters have been beneficial in the short term. But voters age, and as they do the party must adapt its message to meet their changing attitudes and life experiences. Remember, youth voters who came out strong for George McGovern three decades ago are now in their 60s, and those voters helped carry Bush across the finish line in 2004. </p>
<p></p><center><b> * * *</b></center>
<p>Is the GOP drive for Hispanic voters over? In 2004, Bush captured 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, a significant achievement and a break with historic trends. However, this year 72 percent of Hispanic primary voters took a Democratic ballot, and a July Pew Research poll showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 66 percent to 23 percent among Hispanics. Even if McCain manages to lure all of the remaining undecided voters, at 34 percent he will fall well short of Bush and close to the historic average for Republican presidential candidates. </p>
<p>If Obama can get 70 percent of Hispanic votes, and Hispanics expand from 9 percent to 11 percent of the national electorate (and the turnout and performance of all other racial groups is identical to 2004), that shift alone would be almost enough to erase the 2.5 percent margin by which Kerry lost to Bush. But Hispanics are also very Catholic, and their aspirational agenda is by definition less susceptible to the redistributive and affirmative-action messages that appeal to African Americans. If Democrats want to improve their margins among Latinos they'll need to come up with something more substantive than "Si, se puede!" </p>
<p></p><center><b> * * *</b></center>
<p>How many conservative evangelicals are there, really? Despite the fawning media coverage of evangelical politics, the country is becoming more secular, more religiously tolerant, and more supportive of removing the influence of church from the state. Christine Wicker, author of <i>The Fall of the Evangelical Nation</i>, argues that the conservative evangelical voting bloc is 7 percent of the population, rather than one-fourth of the electorate as often reported. "I judged this every way that I could. I looked at beliefs, I looked at behavior, I looked at church attendance. And that 7 percent holds up every way you look at it. There's only a small core of people, and they are the ones delivering the vote. The other 18 percent, it's the swing vote." </p>
<p>As Frances FitzGerald wrote recently in <i>The New Yorker</i>, "Half of all evangelicals have substantial differences with the religious right. Furthermore, they don't like the angry intolerance of the religious right and cringe when they are associated with it." These are the religious voters Obama is vying for when he talks openly about his personal faith. If he can keep his numbers close with these religious voters, as well as continue to draw strong support from infrequent churchgoers and secular Americans, the votes of the highly religious will be cancelled out. </p>
<p>Even if the answers to all these five long-term questions favor Democrats, there will be other forces at work, as Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton, reminded me. "Be very careful of the idea that there are stable and enduring majorities in American politics," Klinkner warns. "When you look at non-incumbent elections since 1796, exactly half were won by the in-party and exactly half by the out-party." If Obama wins this November, it will be partly attributable to a more Democrat-friendly electorate. But his vaunted team will need to mobilize it. </p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:25:02 +0000147464 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerA Walk Among the Blue Dogshttp://prospect.org/article/walk-among-blue-dogs
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><i>Editors' Note: This piece has been <a href="#corrected">corrected</a>.</i></p>
<p>Jason Smith was not exactly the type of Blue Dog I expected to run into at the invitation-only "A Blue Night in Denver" party the conservative Democratic group hosted here Sunday night. </p>
<p>I met Smith by chance at the bar at Mile High Station, a spacious, two-level venue located almost directly underneath the section of Interstate 25 that overpasses Route 70. Organizers cleared the parking lot in the back and erected a giant white tent to house an outdoor soundstage. Above that tent was a massive highway billboard advertising Oliver Stone's new biopic <i>W.</i>, replete with the promotional photo of Josh Brolin as The Decider leaning back in his Oval Office chair with cowboy boot-clad feet stretched out in front of him. </p>
<p>I pointed to the billboard as a way to strike up a conversation with Smith, whose lapel pin said he was from Texas, a tough state for a Democrat of any ideological stripe. The 40-year-old trial lawyer from Fort Worth turned out to be a proud Hillary Clinton supporter, who identifies as "very liberal Democrat" and sees a place for Blue Dogs within the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>This Dog is no PUMA, folks, and he is far from an orthodox centrist. (He said he will vote for Clinton on the symbolic ballot taken Wednesday and then vote for Obama after that.) When I asked Smith if he were worried that Barack Obama's nomination might jeopardize the Democrats' stars-aligned chance to take back the White House, he cheered the ideological ground shift occurring within the party. </p>
<p>"I'm glad the party moved to the left," said Smith. "The only way Obama loses is if he goes the other way. This is a change election and folks are voting Democratic because they want change." I almost spilled my Jack-and-Diet Coke. </p>
<p>Smith said he is confident Blue Dogs will be there for Obama because they are practical and want to win. He also believes the group gets an unfair rap from liberals within the party. "My experience with Blue Dogs is that they are basically strong Democrats, but they cut the corporations more slack," he told me. The Blue Dogs are a more business-friendly, fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic Party dominated by members from redder states and overrepresented by Southern members who hail from the kind of districts Democrats lose in presidential elections. The coalition includes some of the members with the most conservative voting records in the Democratic Caucus, including the most conservative, Mississippi's Gene Taylor. </p>
<p>That slack-cutting was precisely what brought a fired-up contingent of three dozen or so Code Pink protestors out to the sidewalks in front of Mile High Station. As the Blue Dogs inside drank and nibbled on grilled cheese triangles and ham-and-pickle mini biscuits, the Pink crusaders outside were making quite a fuss. </p>
<p>AT&amp;T, you see, was the party's primary sponsor, and the Code Pink crowd wouldn't exactly describe as "slack-cutting" the immunity from charges of illegal domestic wiretapping that AT&amp;T and its fellow telecommunication giants were granted with the help of some complicit congressional Democrats, a few of whom were noshing on cheese sandwiches inside. "AT&amp;T, we've got your number," they shouted. </p>
<p>Here's a number I started to tally in my notebook before giving up: the list of sponsors (roughly three dozen) scrolling continuously across the flat-screen TVs above the bar at Mile High Station. Almost every industry had a company or trade association on the roll call: Conoco, Novo Nordisc, Citibank, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the suddenly embattled National Association of Mortgage Bankers were there, to name a few. (The party was closed to the media and I was initially turned away; fortunately, a friend who works for one of the sponsoring companies had an extra ticket, which he gave me on the condition that I not mention the firm in this story.) </p>
<p>Given the somewhat rural and Southern tilt to the Blue Dog coalition, the music on Sunday was more heavily influenced by Memphis and Austin than Motown or Atlanta. And it must be noted that, on the eve of a convention about to elect the first majority-party African American candidate in history, "A Blue Night in Denver" was noticeably white. Of course, there is only one African American Blue Dog in Congress -- Georgia's David Scott -- and a mere handful of Latinos, including California's Loretta Sanchez and Colorado's John Salazar. </p>
<p>The next afternoon I caught up with Charles Rangel, the veteran congressman from Harlem, current chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and no Blue Dog he. I asked if he thought Blue Dogs were losing influence within the caucus. He paused a moment, as if to acknowledge that he knew exactly why a writer from a liberal magazine might tee up this kind of question for him, then shot me a look that said he'd been around too long to foolishly take a full swing at that. </p>
<p>"Well, we haven't seen the landslide we expected, yet," said Rangel, referring to the 2006 results that put him into the chairman's seat. "So we have to wait and not count our chickens before they're hatched. And right now [the Blue Dogs] are very helpful to me on my committee, especially on issues of fiscal conservatism. We operate on a consensus basis within the caucus, so let's see what happens." Translation: We both know I'd like to have the majorities I need without them -- but I don't yet, and until I do I'm not going to kick a Blue Dog while it sleeps. </p>
<p>If there's not much color in the coalition, neither is there much estrogen -- of the 47-member Blue Dog coalition, only six are women. Of these, two are rookies -- Arizona's Gabrielle Giffords and New York's Kirsten Gillibrand -- and a third who only won her first full term last cycle: South Dakota's Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who won a special election first before being re-elected in 2006. Perhaps the coalition will change in time with the infusion of these newer, younger members and more input from women. </p>
<p>I asked Democratic pollster and women's vote expert Celinda Lake about this as we strolled along downtown Denver's 16th Street pedestrian walkway. "I think that women voters and women Democrats believe in a proper role for government, and the corporate stuff is a bit of a turnoff," said Lake. "Even the women in the coalition have the most progressive voting records for Blue Dogs, by far." </p>
<p>The highlight of "A Blue Night" for me was a brief conversation with Al From, the founder and president of the Democratic Leadership Council and the man more responsible for the centrist shift within the party than anyone other than that former Arkansas governor From helped elect to the White House. When asked his thoughts on Obama's chances, he kindly responded. "Obama has some work to do, but he'll do it," From said. "I think Obama will win -- he's going to win." </p>
<p> Many liberals believe the centrists' stewardship over the politics and policy of the party helped usher into the Oval Office that guy on the billboard hovering over the "Blue Night" tent. It was just a coincidence, but what a weird one indeed. </p>
<p><i><a name="corrected" id="corrected"></a>Correction: Due to a reporting error, Jason Smith's political identification was incorrect. He identifies as a "very liberal Democrat."</i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:18:28 +0000147419 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerOBAMA AND CLINTON TO CAMPAIGN TOGETHER.http://prospect.org/article/obama-and-clinton-campaign-together
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" vspace="5" align="left" hspace="10" /></a>It was announced today that <strong>Barack Obama </strong>and <strong>Hillary Clinton </strong>will <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5izQosMtCfjNjE1uAP6fQV2BZ_qWwD91DQQQ80">campaign together</a> next Friday.</p>
<p>OK, let’s have some fun with this one. What’s going to be the big storyline? And what’s going to be the cute tag name for these events?</p>
<p>I stink at this sort of thing, but I’ll go with Barack-Hill-a-palooza. (They are both iconic people who can be referred to by first names only.) On a more serious note, my bet is that the major storyline will be that Obama will smartly opt to introduce Hillary at the event(s) and let her speech be the focal point, rather than having her open with the standard, rah-rah introduction before yielding the stage to him.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:15:39 +0000195818 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerTHOUGHTS ON RUSSERThttp://prospect.org/article/thoughts-russert
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Whatever you thought of <strong>Tim Russert</strong>, boy did it take guts for <strong>Linda Hirshman </strong>at <em>The Nation </em>to write <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/hirshman">this critique </a>of him.</p>
<p>As for me, I only had one interaction with him in my life, and it was at a <strong>Mike Huckabee </strong>event in January at the Val Air ballroom in Des Moines. Russert was standing alone in the crowd near the back and I went up to him. I had a press badge on, though I’m not sure he saw that. I asked him what he thought about Huckabee. He just put his hands up in a semi-surrender way; he literally would not say one word.</p>
<p>At first, I took his (non-)response to be rude. But I later realized he probably felt he had a duty not to express an opinion, whatever it was, about people he had or would have to (again) interview some day. On the one hand you could take this as an indication of inflated self-regard, but the more I thought about it the more I concluded he just felt like he had to be as neutral a referee as possible. (But again, read Hirshman’s critique, which makes several compelling arguments.)</p>
<p>A final point: Although I think the whole Buffalo-and-Big-Russ stuff got a bit maudlin at times, the thing I most admired about Russert was that he was a working-class kid from Upstate New York, just as I am, and he let people know it. I’ve interacted with my share of well-connected Ivy League grads in this town who became “senior editors” or whatever not long after they took their first legal drink. For all the talk of how elitist the elected classes are, the chattering classes are <em>more </em>elitist. What Russert proved was that you could make it all the way to the top even if you started near the bottom.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:04:38 +0000195816 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerTHE FLIP-FLOP IS ON THE OTHER FOOT THIS CYCLEhttp://prospect.org/article/flip-flop-other-foot-cycle
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a>In the <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.schaller18jun18,0,4946460.column">latest installment </a>of my <em>Baltimore Sun </em>column I discuss the surprising number of policy reversals by <strong>John McCain </strong>in just the past month. The theme of the column draws heavily from <strong>Cliff Schecter’s </strong>new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Real-McCain-Conservatives-Independents-Shouldnt/dp/0979482291/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1213960163&amp;sr=1-1">The Real McCain</a>, in which he writes: "A conditional friend to conservatives, an appealing maverick to independents, and a noxious Bush apologist to Democrats, McCain is a unique blend of allegiances and enmities in American politics. What conservatives misread as disloyalty to the cause isn't that at all; what moderates and independents value of McCain's free thinking isn't that, either."</p>
<p>Though it’s hard to find somebody with as encyclopedic knowledge of McCain as Cliff, the ever-diligent <strong>Steve Benen</strong> of the <em>Carpetbagger Report </em>may be the one challenger. Steve, you see, is making a list (and checking it twice) of McCain’s bottomless beach basket of flip flops. So far he has identified—you may need to take a seat here—a whopping four dozen policy position changes and reversals, which he lists <a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html">here</a>. As I conclude the <em>Sun </em>column: "In 2004, Republicans characterized Democrat <b>John Kerry</b> as somebody who changed positions--a candidate with no policy core, no ideological mooring. This time around, with John McCain at the head of their ticket, it appears that the flip-flop is on the other partisan foot."</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:40:57 +0000195815 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerLOVING THE COUNTRY HE LOVES.http://prospect.org/article/loving-country-he-loves
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" vspace="5" align="left" hspace="10" /></a>Wow: <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/country_ad">Here’s </a><strong>Obama’s </strong>first national ad as the nominee. It's "Country I Love" and it reaches directly for the “values” card the Republicans love to play, shreds it into a million little pieces and throws the scraps in their faces.<br /></p><p>The not-so-subtle imagery -- pictures of Obama with his mom and her parents, mentions of supporting “welfare to work” and backing our troops -- quite clearly say to white voters, "Don’t ever dare try to paint me with your 'out-of-touch, unpatriotic elite who doesn’t share our values' brush."</p>
<p>And then there’s the group of states where the 60-second ad will run: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. I’m not convinced that North Carolina and (especially) Georgia are worth the expenditure, but I like seeing Alaska, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota (!) and, yes, Virginia in the mix. </p>
<p>Shall we consider this the campaign's unofficial, opening list of targeted swing states? Methinks so. </p>
<p>Obama and his team just keep on hitting home runs. It makes me wonder why it was so hard for past Democratic nominees to figure out how to run for president.</p>
<p><b>Editors' Note</b><b>:</b> The meaning of the second line of this post was changed accidentally in editing. It should say that the messages of the ad were aimed at white voters, but the ad<br />
itself sends a signal to the GOP: "Don't ever dare try to paint me with<br />
your 'out-of-touch, unpatriotic elite who doesn't share our values'<br />
brush." </p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:16 +0000195807 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerKILGORE, SCHALLER DEBATE HILLARY VEEPSTAKEShttp://prospect.org/article/kilgore-schaller-debate-hillary-veepstakes
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a>Should <strong>Obama </strong>pick <strong>Hillary </strong>for veep?</p>
<p>My friend <strong>Ed Kilgore </strong>and I debate that proposition over at <em>Salon</em>. He says “<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/16/hillary_yes/">yes</a>” and I say “<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/16/hillary_no/">no</a>.”</p>
<p>We debate, you decide.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:06:32 +0000195778 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerTAKE THE UNDER (AT 325 ELECTORS).http://prospect.org/article/take-under-325-electors
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a>With all due respect to <em>Time's </em><strong>Ana Marie Cox </strong>and <em>AP’s </em><strong>Nedra Pickler</strong> -- or for that matter, Obama campaign manager <strong>David Plouffe's </strong>strategic plan, as <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIzO-5tNRbCrfaxT_qcKppetRwCwD91B275G0">reported </a>by Pickler and <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/obamas_new_gameplan.html">blogged </a>by Cox -- I must rudely note that there are a few of us, particularly many western Democrats, who have been saying for years now that there are ways to get to 270 by starting more or less with the <strong>John Kerry</strong>-won states and building out from there, and yes, even <em><strong>without </strong></em>either Florida or Ohio.</p>
<p>In the afterword to the paperback edition of <em>Whistling Past Dixie</em>, written almost a year ago and published in January before we knew the nominee, I identified five paths to get to 270. Single-shot wins in either Ohio or Florida are just two, but three others without OH or FL include the “southwest passage” of 19 electors from the three, non-Arizona Southwest states, and two variations on what I call the “36th parallel” strategy involving Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia. (Arguably, <strong>Hillary Clinton </strong>would have had a better shot at KY and WV, Obama could still win either or both of MO and VA.) </p>
<p>So, like, <em>duh</em>. My point is that nobody, including me, is breaking any new ground here, at least by June 2008. Why? As I mention in every presentation I give at home or abroad about the election, the key thing to remember is that the number of states won by 10 percent or more (and the subset of those won by 20 percent or more) doubled between the close 1960 election and the two close elections this decade. That is, the blue states are bluer and the red states are redder and thus the map, though loosening a bit, is still pretty damn tight.</p>
<p>We’re all focusing on the same handful states for a reason -- <em>recent demography makes the map far more rigid, and predictable</em>. I’d be shocked if the 44th president enters office with more than 325 electoral votes. Does anyone want to bet the "over" on that?</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:55:48 +0000195776 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerSANCTIMONIOUS SOURPUSShttp://prospect.org/article/sanctimonious-sourpuss
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a><strong>Joe Lieberman</strong> is really pushing his luck lately. It’s clear he’s still bitter about being defeated by <strong>Ned Lamont</strong> in the 2006 democratic primary in Connecticut, and that he enjoys rubbing the Democrats’ noses in his victory as an independent in the general election (which he has the luxury of doing in a 51-49 Senate Democratic majority that depends on his vote). </p>
<p>Two recent pieces -- <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_el_pr/lieberman">one </a>by <strong>Andrew Miga </strong>of the <em>Associated Press </em>and <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20080611_7158.php">another </a>by <em>National Journal’s</em> <strong>Matthew Berger</strong> -- follow Lieberman-the-apostate on and off the campaign trail. What’s clear is that the only thing more sufferable than Lieberman right now will be Lieberman this November if <strong>John McCain </strong>wins.</p>
<p>But if <strong>Barack Obama </strong>wins and Senate majority leader <strong>Harry Reid </strong>nets three or four Senate seats, the Sanctimonious Sourpuss of the Senate is heading for a world of irrelevancy. And not a moment too soon.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:27:52 +0000195770 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerWHO'S YOUR DADDY?http://prospect.org/article/whos-your-daddy-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a><strong>Barack Obama</strong> gave a great, <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&amp;year=2008&amp;base_name=obama_assails_absent_black_fat">Father’s Day-themed speech</a> yesterday. Parts of it were politically easy, such as his entreaties about parental responsibility; you could easily imagine some of the words coming from the pen of conservative culture warriors.</p>
<p>But what was impressive is how Obama linked personal responsibility—a theme <strong>Bill “end of government as we know it” Clinton </strong>used to catapult himself nationally—directly and unapologetically to government responsibility, as in this key section:</p>
<blockquote><p>[O]ur young boys and girls see…when you are ignoring or mistreating your wife. They see when you are inconsiderate at home; or when you are distant; or when you are thinking only of yourself. And so it’s no surprise when we see that behavior in our schools or on our streets. That’s why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our children by living them. We need to show our kids that you’re not strong by putting other people down – you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s our responsibility as fathers. </p>
<p>And by the way – it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Obama then goes on to advocate ending the marriage penalty, extending the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on. Good stuff.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:30:51 +0000195771 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerEARLY POLL SIGNIFICANCE (IF ANY)http://prospect.org/article/early-poll-significance-if-any
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="%20http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08%20"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a>National polls as charted <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html">here </a>by <em>Real Clear Politics </em>show <strong>Barack Obama </strong>holding a consistent if small lead in head-to-head pairings against <strong>John McCain</strong>. In the 19 most current polls going back to the beginning of May, Obama was ahead in 18 and tied in the 19th. Going further back to the beginning of April he led in 29 polls, was tied in five, with McCain leading in just three. </p>
<p>Four caveats, all but one of which merit caution for Democrats:</p>
<ol><p>
</p><li>It’s early. <strong>Mike Dukakis </strong>was crushing <strong>George H. W. Bush </strong>in the early summer of 1992 and we all know how that turned out.</li>
<p> </p><p>
</p><li>Though lately he does seem to be gaining some distance in the aftermath of his primary victory, Obama’s leads are often within the margin of error</li>
<p> </p><p>
</p><li>There may be a social desirability effect here in which respondents are telling pollsters they are voting for Obama when they ultimately will not.</li>
<p> </p><p>
</p><li>Finally, and this may work against McCain, these are head-to-head matchups that ignore the possibility of former Republican congressman-turned-Libertarian-agitator <strong>Bob Barr </strong>or former Libertarian-turned-Republican-agitator <strong>Ron Paul </strong>skimming off the top of McCain’s totals. </li>
</ol><p></p><p>Still, overall, Obama is in good shape for early June.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em></p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:54:38 +0000195753 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerA THIRD BUSH-CHENEY TERM (EMPHASIS ON CHENEY)http://prospect.org/article/third-bush-cheney-term-emphasis-cheney
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles/election_08"><img src="http://www.prospect.org/galleries/blog-images/New_Election08_SqButton.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></a>Holy smokes: Why is <strong>Barack Obama </strong>under-selling the notion of “<strong>Bush’s </strong>third term” when he rightly can and should be selling it as a third “<strong>Bush-Cheney </strong>term”?!</p>
<p>Go read this <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/11/mccain-cheney-hell-yeah/">post </a>from <strong>Matt Corley </strong>at Think Progress for all the frightening details.</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em>
</p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:09:33 +0000195738 at http://prospect.orgThomas SchallerSWING 'EM HOMEhttp://prospect.org/article/swing-em-home
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Oh, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUbOCa8L4k#">this video </a>about President <strong>Bush's </strong>golf sacrifice for the troops is simply too precious not to send along. (Hat tip to my friend <strong>Oliver Griswold </strong>for alerting me to it. <em>Warning</em>: There are a coupla naughty words in there.)</p>
<p><em>--Tom Schaller</em></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:45:44 +0000195727 at http://prospect.orgThomas Schaller